Asthma Carbon Footprint 'As Big As Eating Meat' (bbc.com) 221
Cambridge University researchers say some inhalers are bad for the environment because they release greenhouse gases linked to global warming. They recommend patients with asthma talk to their doctors to see if there's a "greener" medication they could switch to to help cut their carbon footprint and save the environment. The BBC reports: There are more than five million people with asthma in the UK. The research looked at the environmental impact of different inhaler medications prescribed to patients on the NHS in England. In 2017, about 50 million inhalers were prescribed. Seven out of every 10 of them were metered-dose inhalers - the type that contain greenhouse gases. The gas -- hydrofluoroalkane -- is used as a propellant to squirt the medicine out of the inhaler.
Metered-dose inhalers account for nearly 4% of NHS greenhouse gas emissions, according to experts. The researchers estimate replacing even one in every 10 of these inhalers with a more environmentally friendly type (dry powder inhalers) would reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 58 kilotons. That's similar to the carbon footprint of 180,000 return car journeys from London to Edinburgh, they say. And at the individual level, each metered-dose inhaler replaced by a dry powder inhaler could save the equivalent of between 150kg and 400kg (63 stone) of carbon dioxide a year - similar to the carbon footprint reduction of cutting meat from your diet.
Metered-dose inhalers account for nearly 4% of NHS greenhouse gas emissions, according to experts. The researchers estimate replacing even one in every 10 of these inhalers with a more environmentally friendly type (dry powder inhalers) would reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 58 kilotons. That's similar to the carbon footprint of 180,000 return car journeys from London to Edinburgh, they say. And at the individual level, each metered-dose inhaler replaced by a dry powder inhaler could save the equivalent of between 150kg and 400kg (63 stone) of carbon dioxide a year - similar to the carbon footprint reduction of cutting meat from your diet.
global-scale (Score:5, Insightful)
victim blaming
nice
and i really really hate that term, but it fits...
next up, pedestrian crossings contribute to carbon emissions because gas powered vehicles have to brake and accelerate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mandatory abortions for everyone, because carbon footprint is lower than raising a child to adulthood.
neo-liberal cost-benefit analysis applied to green socialism is a Frankenstein's monster of an ideology that is both unethical and unworkable.
Re:global-scale (Score:5, Funny)
In your head that might even be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Mandatory abortions for everyone, because carbon footprint is lower than raising a child to adulthood.
Seriously, this is an actual movement: http://vhemt.org/ [vhemt.org]
Re:global-scale (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, in solidarity with those suffering from asthma, I will not drive from London to Edinburgh today.
Re: global-scale (Score:5, Informative)
Asthmatic here, two parent doctors. Tried just about every medication under the sun.
Salbutamol inhalers are the most common reliever type medication. Salbutamol can also be delivered as a powder. I actually find it more effective, as there is less need to time the dose release precisely. Aerosol inhalers are, however, cheaper. I've never found out why. Powder release mechanisms are cheaper, and are also refillable to boot.
Wait, now I know exactly why they aren't on the market as commonly. Cheaper and refillable. Two things big pharma do not want.
Plus, every few years they patent some new delivery mechanism. Look at all the new inhalers, they're all just slightly modified aerosol inhalers, the type that gave been sold under the brand name Ventolin for decades. And I can say anecdotally they are not any more effective. I still fall back to Salbutamol inhalers when travelling and have never felt it was less effective than the expensive one I get from the pharmacy back home.
So the answer to this issue is to be found in the commerce of the thing, not in medical efficacy.
I'm sure this will surprise exactly nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of pricing and availability it sort of depends on where you live. Where I live salbutamol dry powder inhalers and capsules are unavailable at any price.
I just checked alldaychemist.com, a popular Indian mail order pharmacy and the regular HFA metered dose inhaler costs around 2.5 cents per dose compared to about 13 cents per dose for the dry powder capsules. So that is about 5 times the cost. It may not matter to rich people, but to poor people who can barely afford the inhaler at all the cost diff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: global-scale (Score:4, Insightful)
A few years back emergency inhalers like Primatene started disappearing because the government mandated it because of CFC delivery or whatever.
Turns out they were pushed by the inhaler companies because their patents were running out and they wanted to shift to new patents.
Always follow the money. A "good cause" is just useful idiots to corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Primatene was also less effective than the newer albuterol inhalers. Primatene had a bad taste and felt a bit like an irritant at time. It's main ingredient is also ephedrine, probably not the best thing for kids.
Re: (Score:2)
You might find it more effective, but many asthmatics (including myself) don't. I've tried every form of powered inhaler imaginable, The round disks that get punctured. The inhaler that breaks the capsules, and none work as well as the aerosol (especially during a severe attack).
Here in Canada, the late 80s and early 90s the doctors were really pushing the powdered inhalers, but then the whole fad died out.
Re: global-scale (Score:4, Informative)
Now that I think about it, I remember that the dry powder inhalers have a problem: they don't work if they are even a bit damp. The powder sticks to the inside of the inhaler and very little of the dose makes it out the front.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I think about it, I remember that the dry powder inhalers have a problem: they don't work if they are even a bit damp. The powder sticks to the inside of the inhaler and very little of the dose makes it out the front.
I use the inhaler recommended by my HMO doctor, which is a propellant type, so I have no experience with this powder type. But if, as you describe his occurs, it is a very serious problem as these are rescue inhalers used to relieve on-going asthma attacks which can be fatal (I had a next door neighbor die from one). These inhalers must be reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.storytrender.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/moto-1024x576.jpg
Re: (Score:2)
You know a study is junk when they start measuring CO2 emissions in stones.
Re:global-scale (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
victim blaming
nice
and i really really hate that term, but it fits...
next up, pedestrian crossings contribute to carbon emissions because gas powered vehicles have to brake and accelerate
There are three ways to react to this:
1) PANIC; PANIC, CLIMATE DOOOM!
2) VICTIM BLAMING BUUUUURN THEM!
3) Ok, guys, what gas can we put in these things that is climate neutral?
Your reaction, (2) is no better than the one you are criticising (1).
Re:global-scale (Score:5, Informative)
3) Ok, guys, what gas can we put in these things that is climate neutral?
This wouldn't be the first time option #3 has been employed. The last time it happened was due to the 1987 ban on CFCs. Inhalers had an exception but that was eliminated in the US in 2008. This resulted in a slew of new patented HFA albuterol inhalers, despite the fact that the medication was still the same, which meant the generic market disappeared resulting increased medication costs for the patients by around 50%. Generic HFA inhalers are only recently coming onto the market providing pricing relief to asthma sufferers after nearly a decade.
Re:global-scale (Score:4, Insightful)
Helium (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they used helium?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not how I understand it.
It is just suggestion about what can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from asthma treatment. They don't blame patients for their illness, and the article explicitly says "Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty". There are also some common sense advise like "don't waste your inhalers and dispose of them properly".
What's wrong in suggesting ways for patients to limit their greenhouse gas emissions without compromising the efficien
Re: (Score:2)
victim blaming
nice
and i really really hate that term, but it fits...
I saw no "victim blaming" - I saw a report on certain type of asthma inhalers having big carbon footprint. Should it not be reported? Should people ignore this, especially when there's an alternative medication available? I don't want to be protected from this sort of information - why the heck would I? People need to know these things if they want to change things.
I got this from the beginning of article: "But the Cambridge University team told BMJ Open patients must check with a doctor before changing med
Re: (Score:2)
victim blaming
nice
and i really really hate that term, but it fits...
First they spread the fake news that eating meat is seriously contributing to the climate problem (which would only be the case if cows were drinking petroleum). Then they double down by citing asthma inhalers as being "just as bad" as meat farming. The new fake comparison to fake news standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The pill base inhaler you stick the pill in, twist, and suck it in and hold your breath for a bit... there really is zero reason for aerosol inhalers to exist other than perceived convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
The rationale is fine, I think they just really messed up with the tone of the reporting. Or maybe the press added the negative spin to it. Yes, the propellant is a greenhouse gas, but it might have been better to just say that there are alternatives and that pharmaceutical companies should focus on thoe.
But it's being compared to meat eating. You may as well say that wearing shoes is as bad for the environment as eating meat, or reading slashdot...
A good approach here is to reduce the amount and severit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This probably is a problem; but it's one that the manufacturers should be pressured to address. People should not be risking asthma attacks because manufacturers aren't putting the effort in.
Yes it is, and no they shouldn't - and the latter one is even stated in The Fucking Article, if someone would just bother reading it.
Because most wont anyway I keep pasting this in replies to comments where people talk about "victim blaming" or that people shouldn't risk their health because of this:
"But the Cambridge University team told BMJ Open patients must check with a doctor before changing medication.
Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty, they add." ...I'm sur
Re: (Score:2)
How do we get it changed? By asking nicely for the pharmaceutical company to do the right thing? :D We can achieve it through regulation of course, but how long that would actually take in real world, where there are dozens of examples of big business doing bad stuff to nature and governments just keeping silent, because big business also mean moar money to the gubbment, we have no idea.
So no, it's not exactly clear that it will get fixed in couple of years. Unless consumers will start to make choices there
Re: (Score:2)
"Slow minded dipstick, don't hate the term and it fits"
People who dole out insults like yours often fail to mind that they fit the description themselves.
Do you think a pharm company is going to do this for free? The two most likely scenarios are 1) they're forced by gov't fiat to make the change and raise the price, blaming external forces they have "no control over" or 2) they develop the change themselves, patent it no matter how minute and raise the price like they have so many times before in the exact
Problem solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
If we got to the point where we are worried about the green house gasses from asthma inhalers then we must have solved the big emitters by now. This is a life saving device used by a very small number of people. This is not something we should be experimenting with because of its impact on the environment. That is unless we've got everything else down to zero, or as close as reasonably possible.
As for being as much of a contributor as eating meat, well, I'm not going to give up eating meat. There's a lot of other things to worry about before we worry about the greenhouse emissions from meat production.
If these people were serious about reducing green house gas emissions, and I don't believe that they are, then they'd be talking about getting more nuclear power plants and shut up about the hydroelectric dams.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot of other things to worry about before we worry about the greenhouse emissions from meat production.
Meat production is in the top five sources of greenhouse gases. That's a big chunk of CO2, worth worrying about today. Beef production accounts for most of that CO2 (about 60%), you could start eating more chicken/pigs if you want to help things without giving up meat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You'll also be helping out ecologically if you give up beef. Beef production is incredibly destructive in many different ways.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a big chunk of CO2, worth worrying about today.
Meat is mostly vilified because of it's CH4 production (from burping cows), not from its CO2 emissions. For our convenience, the CH4 effects are then translated into something called "CO2-equivalent". The problem is that CH4 has a much stronger greenhouse effect, but only lasts a short time in the atmosphere, so the conversion is dependent on the time scale. If you take a short timescale, the CH4 emissions seem huge. On a long timescale, CH4 emissions are nothing. You can easily tune the outcome based on your political or moral agenda.
If we keep eating the same amount of meat like we've done for decades, then the total amount of CH4 in the atmosphere stays the same, because the amount of CH4 that we are adding is compensated by the CH4 from 10 years ago that's breaking down. And the amount of CH4 produced by a cow is highly dependent on its diet, and there's still plenty we can do to bring that down, so we can actually lower the CH4 and still eat the same amount of meat. Note that majority of CH4 is emitted by fossil fuel operators, and has gone up considerately from the increased use of fracking.
If you take a car trip today, most of that CO2 will still be in the atmosphere 250 years from now. The effect is cumulative.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that CH4 has a much stronger greenhouse effect, but only lasts a short time in the atmosphere,
...and then breaks down into...
...wait for it...
...CO2 and H2O (when mixed with atmospheric O2.)
Yeah, just as if you burned it. Except if you burned it, that would happen much faster, and you could derive benefit from burning it. Except we mostly don't, we mostly just flare it off.
If you take a car trip today, most of that CO2 will still be in the atmosphere 250 years from now. The effect is cumulative.
Right. So if a cow burps today, then most of that will become CO2, which will still be in the atmosphere 250 years from now. But first it will be methane for a while, which makes it a bigger problem. Which is why we're still talki
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
World population decades ago: 2 billion. World population now 7.7 billion
If every person keeps eating the same amount of meat that people ate decades ago, we will heat up the planet. Alternative: less meat per person.
That is a weird conclusion. My conclusion is "if you care about the environment, try to have 1 child or less, because contributing to a population decrease will outweigh every single other action you can take in terms of your carbon footprint."
Re: (Score:2)
My conclusion is "if you care about the environment, try to have 1 child or less, because contributing to a population decrease will outweigh every single other action you can take in terms of your carbon footprint."
And my conclusion is that we probably don't have enough time for that policy to take effect.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
Meat production is in the top five sources of greenhouse gases. That's a big chunk of CO2, worth worrying about today. Beef production accounts for most of that CO2 (about 60%), you could start eating more chicken/pigs if you want to help things without giving up meat.
Top five? You mean it's in fifth place. There's transportation making up about 30%, electricity production about 30%, heating and cooking nearly 30%, cement production about 10%, leaving agriculture about 5%. Yes, meat is quite likely 60% of the green house gasses from agriculture, making that about 3% of the total green house gasses from human activity. So, what can we do about that? People need the protein, fats, minerals, and vitamins from meat. To replace that means growing high protein crops, and processing them to something that people can digest. Those crops will have an environmental impact. From what I read the change from meat to an all vegetable diet will mean lowering that 3% of GHGs to 2%. That's underwhelming.
Here's an idea, let's get some more low CO2 electrical production before we worry about the meat. Electrical production from onshore wind, hydro, nuclear fission, maybe some geothermal, and some more natural gas to help with the transition from coal. While we do that we can develop low carbon transportation. Large ships can be nuclear powered, small cars can be electric, and everything in between can be run off of carbon neutral synthesized fuel. Working on those two sectors, transportation and electricity, eliminates 60% of the green house gasses we produce. Heating and cooking can have it's greenhouse gasses reduced with electric resistance heat, heat pumps, and synthesized fuels. We do that and we've now eliminated 80% or so of the greenhouse gasses, and at that point I think we can call this problem solved.
If for some reason people want to keep going then we can investigate some carbon negative actions that are likely quite affordable. We can replace some of the steel and concrete construction with engineered lumber, the carbon sequestered in the wood. There's natural basalt we can use in cement instead of limestone, that's potentially carbon neutral, it's at least lower in CO2. Basalt is also useful as a means to control pH on croplands, where again this is currently done with limestone. The reason we don't use basalt now is that by weight it's half sand, which adds nothing to the pH control but adds a lot to handling costs, but limestone is nearly 100% pH controlling minerals. Basalt is carbon negative, limestone is not.
There, I just described how to reduce our green house gasses potentially 90% and it didn't require a new diet. It also doesn't require any new technology. It does require that people embrace nuclear power as part of the solution, and if the people doing the math on this are right it doesn't require higher energy costs, or the rise in costs could be minimized with research and development, changes in regulations and taxes, and economy of scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time you're outside look up in the sky.
See the white poofy thing, we call those clouds. It's basically water vapor.
Now take a glass of water and pour it out, see how the water falls down, that's because it's heavier than air.
QED clouds are the devil's work, that or maybe you didn't get as much out of your middle school chemistry class as you probably could have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, people with modest knowledge about science making big conclusions about stuff they don't really understand, because they are not experts on that field, they just have some modest basic science knowledge.
People with only modest knowledge on certain field will more often than not overestimate their own abilities.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:5, Funny)
Please explain to me again how a heavier than air gas gets significantly mixed up in the upper atmosphere again?
Which is why life on Earth has always had this problem with the atmosphere constantly sorting itself by molecular weight. That's why we are always find our cellars filled with nothing but argon. Fortunately when I forget about that, I so far have had time to dash up the stairs to reach the pure oxygen layer that lies above it. But high mountain climbers risk running leaving the oxygen layer behind and dying when they reach the pure nitrogen layer. Airliners of course have nitrogen breathing engines.
Re: (Score:2)
That's heat
So... at what temperature does CO2 come out of car engines?
Re:Problem solved! (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the IFSM study, it's at 3.3% of GHG emissisons and beef is not substantially different in impact from poultry or pork.
And furthermore, that 3,3% does not come from fossil sources. It was pulled from the air into feed crops in the last year or so, then re-emitted from cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article, here's some quotes:
"But the Cambridge University team told BMJ Open patients must check with a doctor before changing medication.
Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty, they add. "
"Metered-dose inhalers account for nearly 4% of NHS greenhouse gas emissions, according to experts.
The researchers estimate replacing even one in every 10 of these inhalers with a more environmentally friendly type (dry powder inhalers) would reduce carbon dioxide equivalen
Re:Problem solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem seems to be that asthma inhalers aren't a big emitter, they're a powerful emitter. What they're emitting isn't CO2 but something that contributes much more to global warming per unit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's relatively common to convert the effect of other climate change gases into the amount of CO2 it takes to create the same effect as convenient way to have a consistant basis of comparison. Then talking about it as a "carbon footprint" is an understandable if not excusable imprecision.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't we?
Sure, the effect will be small but it is a low hanging fruit. It just requires a different type on inhaler, one that already exists and has been proven to be effective.
That's on the level of replacing an burned incandescent light bulb with a LED bulb. You won't save the planet by doing that, but it doesn't cost you and these small things add up in the end.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:5, Informative)
I want to upvote this. Why can't I?
A few possible reasons.
1) This isn't reddit.
2) You don't have any mod points.
3) You can't comment and mod on the same thread.
I have asthma (Score:5, Insightful)
And obviously I’m primarily concerned with having an inhaler that effectively delivers the medicine I need. If that can be done just as well with a “greener” alternative, great. We already went through that with the switch from CFC propellants to HFA. But if not, then that’s the end of the discussion. And, frankly, I don’t believe some of these numbers - they seem intentionally stilted towards sounding more impactful than they really are.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about the article, then you didn't read it (at least not well enough) - nobody is suggesting taking anyones medicine away, nor that people who can't change to greener alternative should do that despite their health. As I've pointed out several times (like a dozen now, or half at least), the article says (among other things):
"But the Cambridge University team told BMJ Open patients must check with a doctor before changing medication.
Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be
Shameful, Hilarious. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shameful, Hilarious. (Score:4, Interesting)
What about fizzy drinks, like Coke? Bottlers purposely stuff them full with CO2 to make them fizzy.
What's the carbon footprint of fizzy drinks world-wide? If we ban them, we could probably solve Global Warming.
Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll say you have something to worry about, Meanwhile:
-Red
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We essentially dismantled out passenger train infrastructure in the latter half of the last century, so between the lack of infrastructure, and the vast scale of the US, travel by rail is just not a viable option except in the NE corridor.
Further, despite my jokes about diesel emissions, modern, clean, diesel engines, burning clean fuel are as clean if not cleaner than gasoline (petrol) engines, and more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother took a bus to California to visit relatives when she was young. "Don't ever do that."
Re: (Score:2)
The whole discussion has long degenerated into religious virtue signalling.
False. Discussion on clickbait sites may be dominated by nonsense, but plenty of serious discussion, policy-formation and development is being done. Those just don't generate as many pageviews, so many sites don't bother covering those.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, they used the new "safe" propellents as an opportunity to get new patents - so they could get rid of the generic $5 inhalers, and go back to charging $80 each.
Air Pollutants Trigger Asthma (Score:3)
Needs a 'stupid' flag (Score:2)
Badly!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a sensible comparison! (Score:2)
And so easy to fix. I mean, people who choke to death only release carbon once more!
Are you fucking for real?
You *mother* #$%...ers...... (Score:3)
I'm in Australia
We switched to a CFC based Ventolin product about 10 or 15 years ago.
Now, I realise CFC is not the ventolin medicine itself, HOWEVER the product was not the same ever since...... the 'headspin' effect was gone and the relief was not the same. It works, not as well.
Friend of mine from Greece still had the non CFC product, used to get her to bring it over when she came back here, because it was so much better.
Can we please not mess with it anymore? It's already weakened.
There's far worse things - some people on the planet literally set fire to little sticks dozens of times a day - burning paper and leaves.
Surely that's worse for the environment?
Re: (Score:3)
The CFC inhalers were banned due to ozone depletion and not CO2 emission. If they are going to ban asthma inhalers for CO2 emission then they had better ban everything else that emits CO2 first. Maybe motor vehicles would be a good start and then they can work their way down to canned air for dusting computer components and CO2 cartridges for BB guns and stuff like that. They like to target asthmatics because we are a small minority of the population and as such are seen as politically harmless.
If you haven
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. The propellant in these (per the summary) is hydrofluoroalkane. When they talk about "Co2 equivalent" they are simply converting to a standard unit in terms of greenhouse effect.
But the ozo
Re: (Score:2)
It boils down to the exact same problem as with epi-pen patents... there are generics that are a few bucks but do
Recursive footprint (Score:2)
Fuck no (Score:2)
Ban the inhalers and reduce CO2 emissions more! (Score:2)
Once all the asthma patients die, their carbon footprints will diminish significantly, too.
It's a win-win-win, as medical spending will decrease overall too.
Fuck off Greta (Score:3)
Re:Fuck off Greta (Score:4, Insightful)
There, I said it.
How internet brave of you.
-1 Flamebait article (Score:2)
How did this flamebait of an article ever get posted? We've had a whole series of the sky is falling articles lately. This is a science oriented website and the scaremongering FUD doesn't belong here. Frankly this kind of stuff belongs over somewhere like Gawker more than it does Slashdot. The dial is not turned to 11 and the sky is not falling. Can we get back to reality please?
This is pathetic (Score:2)
Seriously. We're squandering over something people *need* to breathe, because it has a carbon foot print as big as eating meat?
Seriously? Shit like this really makes me look away from this mess. It's like we're purposely pointing fingers waiting for it to be too late, so we can go into all out war with ourselves near the end of it because, well, it's everyone *else's* fault, amirite?
Generals must be pissing themselves over this divisiveness. Just waiting for the day it all comes crumbling down, then they ge
Wha? (Score:2)
I thought we already went through this. They changed the propellants in all of the inhalers to be greener, so suddenly they were all "new" again and we couldn't have generic inhalers.
What, has it been long enough, was there some danger of them going generic again and becoming affordable? Now the new propellant is evil too?
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. They even have a convenient chart with all the "name brand" manufacturer models they recommend.
WTF is this b*llsh*t?!? (Score:2)
The abysmal ecobalance of meat isn't about carbon, it's about *everything* that goes into meat and breeding and feeding the livestock that gets turned into meat. The carbon footprint is only a small portion of the ecobalance in meat.
Let astma patients breathe and tax the ecobalance of meat - and everything else for that matter - on top of it and the problem will go away almost instantly. We just need politicians that have some balls and are able to tell everyone the cold hard facts.
I only eat beef from asthmatic cows (Score:2)
Now the climate change cult (Score:2)
People need their inhaler "medications".
That why medications have exemptions from the demands of "green" activist politics. People need their medication.
What to clean up the earth? Talk about Communist China...
Cost effective (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases the dry powder inhalers are more effective and cheaper so it seems like promoting them is a win for everyone.
Could you provide further enlightenment on this? Do you live in the US, the EU, or somewhere else? In my experience dry powder inhalers are dramatically more expensive, largely because of mark-up.
My knowledge of this is from my own experience, so I may be mistaken, but it seems that GSK used the discus format to combine Flovent and Serevent into Advair while also charging a ton of extra money; they eliminated generics by apparently patenting the combination of two already available drugs, dominating the mar
An Inconvenient Truth (Score:2)
A kid in America using an inhaler will be just fine, and will likely grow up to be someone who contributes in some way to the American economy that helps drive the world.
I
Re: (Score:2)
America depends upon impoverished counties to either work like serfs providing cheap resources or perpetuate the instability that maintains the status quo.
The foreign aid most often is undermined by politics to maintain the status quo; and long term can do more harm than good... without most people realizing this and instead feeling it's good will. Foreign debts can be tied to aid or partial aid. Debt being leverage to keep them down; furthermore, the aid can (and is) tied to political deals. If all else f
Being alive (Score:2)
...is CLEARLY a carbon pollutant.
Times 7.5 billion that's huge.
Perhaps we should reduce that number?
Asthmatic here (Score:2)
Lifetime asthmatic here, and I've never even heard of a dry powder salbutamol inhaler, much less seen one. All I can say is that the last switch from CFA to HFA inhalers caused the prices to go up like 10X. My $20-$30 inhalers were suddenly like $300.
Fortunately I don't need a rescue inhaler that often, and my regular Advair _is_ a dry powder (and finally has a generic on the US market after 20+ years). Nonetheless, my asthma prescriptions alone use up my entire insurance deductible for the the year ($3k).
Simple solution (Score:2)
Eat more meat.
I'm a skeptic, but (Score:2)
I was using Albuterol Rotohalers in the 80s, part of trials. Very effective, but they seem to have never been released. Several modern medications use powder for delivery, and are indeed sometimes more effective. But some medications are not effectively delivered via powdered form. I'm using Symbicort now, aerosol, and also Flonase, which is a manual spray.
But I seriously question the environmental impact. First, shall I read the study to determine if they are gauging the released gas impact, or are they ju
Uhh... math please? (Score:2)
And at the individual level, each metered-dose inhaler replaced by a dry powder inhaler could save the equivalent of between 150kg and 400kg (63 stone) of carbon dioxide a year.
I am not a climate change denier, but the math of these frequent "you're destroying the planet!" claims makes me more and more skeptical, since they just seem outrageous and concocted merely for scare tactics. So it's saying that if I as an individual replace my inhaler, I might save the environment 150 kg (almost 331 lb) of CO2? My inhaler weighs maybe 6 oz. I'd estimate that I use about 8 a year, but if I pushed it I could probably get the insurance to cover about 24. How in the world do 24 6oz inhalers a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The article refers to the new green propellant, HFA, and not the old CFC propellants. I haven't seen a CFC inhaler in years. They were banned due to alleged ozone layer depletion.
I just did a cost comparison and it seems dry powder inhalers cost about 5 times more to use than HFA metered dose inhalers. Who is going to pay for that extra expense? I would be happy to switch if you pay for it. Although DPI salbutamol/levosalbutamol powder capsules aren't even available in the country where I live. Probably bec
Re: (Score:3)
"And if switching to a green propellant costs next to nothing without impacting product performance?"
They'd have done it already and been advertising about how "green" they are.
Re: (Score:2)
*IF* the propellants cost the same, perform the same, and don't require retooling, then the ability to scream "We're GREEN!" in their advertisements would be the incentive to deploy them. Since they haven't (apparently), I'd guess that the propellants cost more, perform less well, or require significant retooling or supply chain changes or some combination thereof.
I mean, companies fell all over themselves to market their food products as "gluten-free" or "low carb" just to get an edge in a fad..this even f
Re: (Score:2)
And if switching to a green propellant costs next to nothing without impacting product performance?
Which pretty much is the case. Green aerosol propellants have been around since the 80s.
Green propellants will result in new patents meaning that it'll be about 7 to 12 years before you would see significant changeover to the new propellant forms unless you mandate it by law. If you mandate it by law then expect asthma patients to begin having to pay 50% higher medication costs. Asthma sufferers already had to deal with a propellant change once before in 2008-2009 when the CFC exemption for inhalers was eliminated and everyone was forced over to non-generic HFA propellant inhalers.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally nowhere was it suggested that consumers should switch to less effective medication, except in the comments of those who actually didn't read TFA.
"But the Cambridge University team told BMJ Open patients must check with a doctor before changing medication.
Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty, they add."
There's no demands put on those who possibly could switch, it's quite literally just informing that if they want to reduce their carbon footprint, this might
Re: (Score:2)
There is no political dialogue in America anymore. There is no real discussion. Only a kind of cold war with shameless propaganda from both sides being the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to know (Score:2)
...carbon dioxide equivalent emissions...
... the equivalent of between...
They mentioned it twice in just the summary...
...contain greenhouse gases. The gas -- hydrofluoroalkane...
They even helpfully told you the gas wasn't CO2. Also right there in the summary.
I guess deniers gonna deny, any way they can.